Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Back of Beyond => Topic started by: former user on 10 August 2009, 11:05:36 AM
-
Hi
there seems to be an urgent need to discuss the appropriate headgear for the different armies in RCW
(strangely enough started by my personal collecting taste)
so feel free to comment please
here a list:
Furashka - peaked cap (also civilian dress, see Lenin)
Papakha - Peasant fur cap
Kubanka - Cossack style fur cap with felt top, regulation dress for cavalry and elite units
Kolchakowa - Winter dress fur cap, introduced by Kolchak, similar to later Ushanka (with front and ear flaps)
Budienovka - pointy Bolshevik "trademark" felt cap (according to some source originally meant to be introduced in the tsarist army, therefore available in large numbers and adopted by Bolsheviks) aka Bogatyrka, Frunzenka, Shlem
Bashlyk - Cossack headdress, usually felt or fleece, sometimes with fur
Beskozirka - a peakless (in American usage) or visor-less (English usage) style like a Furaskha. Associated with sailors, schoolkids and the "coloured" units in the south.
Rogatywka - the "trademark" four corned Polish cap issued after polish independence.
Czapka - the traditional polish Uhlan headdress, featured in many armies in modified form, however in the everyday use of polish (and russian) language it would be any kind of cap
please complete or correct the list
-
I have seen brightly coloured Bashlyks, usually associated with Cossacks. Are they felt or cloth?
Beskozirka - a peakless (in American usage) or visor-less (English usage) style like a furaskha. Associated with sailors, schoolkids and the "coloured" units in the south.
Rogatywka - the traditional four corned Polish cap. (Whereas a Czapka is any cap.)
I think the Budienovka is also known as the Shlem.
-
I think the brightly coloured Bashlyks would be of felt/fleece and more traditional, as well as more civilian
(which is a strange thing to say for a militaristic organized society like the cossacks)
but who knows (I have seen the paintings) - maybe someone knows a Cossack and could ask?
anyway, this would be a good opportunity to give colour to cavalry
I also read that not all Cosacks used the Cherkesska (typical open coat), but this is another topic
Wikipedia says that there is currently a Cosack revival fostered by Putin...
here another interesting thing:
it appears that the service dress included the Furashka for Cossacks and the Bashlyk was only worn with full dress (here the source:Tablitsi Form' Obmundirovaniya Russkoi Armi", Colonel V.K. Shenk, published by the Imperial Russian War Ministry 1910-11.)
meaning that from the cossack miniatures I know, most would be Kuban or Terek Cossacks in full dress
(Bashlyk, Cherkessa and Beshmet)
so any kind of cavalry with Gymnastiorka and Furashka could represent Cosacks as well!
it is interesting to know that Cossacks in the Tsarist army (apart from the Guard regiments) provided their own uniform, so the general shortage of the RCW would not apply to Cossack units and those therefore could sport a more regular appearence
how about the Beskozirka?
I know the style, but haven't seen it on pictures except in earlier times (late 19. C) or for sailors
also not on miniatures, except for sailors
But I know the German rank&file used something similar as garrison/field cap
(so if the Beskozirka was actually in use, easiest way to use german figures and have more choice)
headdress is a difficult matter and usually quickest adaptable to fashion
oh yes, and helmets
it appears that issued helmets were quickly "lost" (actually I never saw any in pictures)
maybe they were more associated with trench warfare?
who knows more?
-
Interesting to setup a list of all the forms of headdresses. I was never particularly familiar with what the Polish wore, or all the Cossacks either. So this is useful to me. Though that may be simply because I'm more interested in just the Bolsheviks and the Ukrainian anarchist black army.
-
now thats interesting
I want to do a makhnovist army myself
what kind of figures do you use?
So, here's the plan
I am thinking of building a small Makhnovist army for RCW
after checking available miniatures (actually BG and Copplestone)
I decided that bareheaded and furry hat types (apart from cossacks) would represent the peasant background best
why so?
1. Research
I tried to do extensive Photo and movie clip research on the Makhnovists
every pictorial source I saw featured a variety of headcloth, so there was no "trademark" headgear like the BUDIENOVKA of the red army. However, many pictures naturally show Makhnov himself and his staff, who quite often wear the PAPAKHA, the traditional civilian fur cap of the Ukrainian (and other middle Asian) peasant.
2. Interpretation
Since many soldiers of any side would have been former imperial soldiers, it would be of course natural to retain the FURASHKA. For Volunteers of course the access to regulation dress I interpret as rather restricted. With the industry in increased decline and in the hands of bolsheviks (and also the former army stocks), no wonder the main source for the Whites after expending theit original dress would have been Interventionist supply, mainly British uniforms.
The Insurrectory army of Makhnov however hated all revisionists and consequently would not have any access to their supplies. Furthermore, the Anarchists were mainly a peasant army who relied on loot for their equipment, and sometimes perhaps would trade equipment for their agricultural product from the Bolsheviks with whom they occasionally cooperated.
The logical consequence would therefore be that headgear could be expected to be:
- none
- occasional the Furashka, but in decreasing numbers
- miscellaneous civilian headdress, but mainly of urban style
- and the traditional fur hat, which any peasant could manufacture himself or aleady had anyway
in addition, the fact that Makhnov himself usually appeared wearing a fur hat, I would certainly go for some desire to copy the "boss".
The Makhnovist army would probably have had the least uniformity of all RCW armies apart from black arm bands or black markings, as is clearly revealed by the pictorial source.
3. My "peculiar" approach
When constructin a tabletop army, I usually go for a certain uniformity as well as individual highlights, especially when the army would have been at war for some time.
(An "authentically" looking army would be no option for me, since especially in this case it would look like a heap of armed civilians)
therefore some key aspects must be established in order to create some uniformity.
According to my research, these aspects would be:
- fur hats (peasants)
- black (anarchists)
the individual highlights would include the use of Khaki for military looking clothing (or greyish Khaki for greatcoats) and various other colours for the civilian stuff.
But in any case, for a soldier to be instantly recognisable on the tabletop as a Makhnovist it requires either some black device or a fur hat!
Now the available miniatures (as known to me) usually come packed uniformly with Papashkas, Budienovkas or Furashkas, and alternatively in mixed packs.
Budienovkas are out of question, Furashkas may be OK, but the packs wich uniformly feature the former usually also look very "regulation" dress like.
what remains is the fur hat and the mixed packs which provide a great variety of alternative posings so favoured by me.
-
- miscellaneous civilian headdress, but mainly of urban style
Furthermore, the Anarchists were mainly a peasant army.
Not mainly peasant, but exclusively; at least when it comes to the Makhnovists.
The Makhnovists were defiantly anti-urban in culture and politics. They regarded cities as leeches, draining the wealth of the peasants. Their response upon capturing a large town was to loot it and withdraw. They did not even attempt to make common cause with the proletariat.
We tend to think nowadays of "Anarchism" as an educated and urban thing. But the followers of Makhno were not of that sort - they just wanted to be left to plough their land with no external authority at all. A few city intellectuals joined with Makhno, but merely as hangers-on. They not follow the army, but tried to use the power vacuum in the Ukraine to try out their theories in some small collective farm or similar.
I would guess the only thing less likely than an urban style hat (say a homburg) on a Makhnovist would be a Jewish one or a German one. (Note that I am not accusing Makhno personally of anti-Semitism. Only the bulk of his followers.)
I'm not sure how much of an issue this is in 25mm, but Peter Pig make a lovely 15mm "Red Guard" pack in urban civilian dress who are sadly wrong as a Makhnovists.
-
indeed
most hats/caps seen in pictures from rural areas of that time are Furashkas and Papakhas
as the Ukrainians were (and are) regarded as rural, and fur caos are rather traditional in the more southern parts of eastern europe, I would expect the mixture of civilian headdress to to tend towards fur caps in Ukrainia and Furashka in Russia and Belarus.
the civilian Furashka was very common and ubiquitous, even with Jewish and Cossacks
taking into account industrial deterioration and declining logistics in 4 Jears of civil war (eg the kolchakovka introduced by Kolchak), I would expect more Furashkas in the beginning and more fur hats towards the end, except for the fractions profiting of urban industry, namely the Bolsheviks.
The later Whites would have increasingly worn british uniform.
Fur hats are very easy to produce in rural areas and therefore available, especially for the poor.
for rather not uniformed combattants, it is not easy to define the concept of "urban" headdress.
something like a homburg would be of course a sign of bourgeoisie and not to be expected in any revolutionary context.
But anything available from felt cap to flat cap would be perfect on any more "civilian dressed" (as often featured on partisan-like miniatures)
As for the Makhnovists, though mainly peasants, one should not forget that they had many supporters from others than peasants, as well as many defected soldiers from other fractions who would prefer the anarchist sytem to the enforced discipline of reds and whites alike.
Allthough mainly relying on loot for equipment, the Makhnovist army indeed operated some armored cars and trains and not only the hunting shotgun and pitchfork of Cliché.
Also Makhno himself is variously credited as the inventor of the Tachanka to support the allegedly best cavalry of RCW (I was surprised to read the latter, but one should not forget that Cossacks are also peasants).
unfortunately, anyone but the wealthy or insane would be unable to authentically represent any specific army (RCW or not) along the changes in a long war, so some measure must be kept here
-
former user -
I would agree with you that the Black Army should be represented with a mixture. I like a mixture of troops in civilian clothes, mixed civilian/military clothes, and even a few in uniforms. Don't forget that Mahkno himself favored wearing pieces of various uniforms, and was keenly aware of the effect that a uniform - even a ragged one - could have upon the population. The recent television series on Mahkno, while I understand not the greatest piece of cinematography ever, has some great shots of troops in various mixed gear, including all sorts of head gear, as you discussed earlier. (No Schlems <Sp?> or Helmets of course.)
Although my company was named for the Black Army of Matthias Corvinus, it might well have been named for the Mahknovists - I've been fascinated by them since I started serious reading on the RCW. A great, and often neglected topic. Of course, they have been accused of their share of atrocities, but to be fair, so are all the combatants in what was a very nasty struggle.
-Doc
-
I agree
finding the balance between uniform display and the raggedness of a long war in a force including a hich percentage of motivated civilians is indeed the key to a convincingly looking army
I will try my shot and show the result
but I guess this will be next year since my funds and time are currently tied with my armoured train project
-
now thats interesting
I want to do a makhnovist army myself
what kind of figures do you use?
Considering your picture I'm not surprised ;).
I use a mixture of armed civilians/partisans, converted/modified Bolsheviks and a select few ragged Whites. Copplestone indeed.
I rely on the few Makhnovist pictures I can find, usually ones with Makhno and his staff. It's really just a family heritage hobby project I do not foresee being finished in the near future. Mostly still in the miniatures collecting stage, and it won't really kick off until after I move to somewhere with more room for my miniatures hobby. Looking to build a suitable table for it too, arid desert and alien jungle really don't do it for this.
Could you suggest a few sites or something on the army, and possibly some pictures? All the material I have is from an old high school family heritage project I made and it focused a little more on Makhno, his achievements and his family than some of the special points of the army itself.
-
Allthough mainly relying on loot for equipment, the Makhnovist army indeed operated some armored cars and trains and not only the hunting shotgun and pitchfork of Cliché.
Most clichés I have seen of the Makhnovists tend to the other end. Far from denigrating them, they tend to assume that they were a regular army with a few odd political ideals. A Ukrainian Durruti Column, as it were, rather than hastily mobilised peasants bulking out a small core.
The Makhnovists never operated armour for any length of time. It would tie them down to rail lines and roads, which would make them easy meat for the organised armies. They weren't able to control the rail junctions (too often in towns). Nor could they supply fuel or ammo.
If they captured stuff, then they would use it because they weren't stupid. So I know that a couple of times they attacked with trains. But they would quickly abandon them. So armour never formed a part of the Maknovist army other than for a couple of days at a time. It was the same with artillery: they would fire off all the ammunition and then abandon it (except when they were part of the Red Army, presumably, since supply was possible in those conditions).
Also Makhno himself is variously credited as the inventor of the Tachanka to support the allegedly best cavalry of RCW (I was surprised to read the latter, but one should not forget that Cossacks are also peasants).
Makhno had very good cavalry and every Makhnovist army should have a unit or two, backed up with numerous tachankas. They were experienced, brave and disciplined and were the strike force of his army (his foot soldiers were pretty ordinary, though much better than most partisans).
Since morale is all-important in cavalry battles I rate them with the very best White and Polish cavalry. There weren't that many of them though.
-
I am still searching myself for material
maybe we should ask @mark plant where he gets his detailed knowledge from
problem is, the Anarchist movement is seen to have provided a true alternative to bolshevism (by anarchists) and are demonised by soviets who wouldn't accept that
so the sources are very scarce and though some Makhnovists did write their memoirs in exile, they wouldn't bother about details interesting for the wargamer
the actual discussion tutning around whether they were antisemitic or not
my next step would be to search for ukrainian peasant pictures on the net, but I don't expect too much, because who would take pictures of peasents in 1918??
in some sources Makhnovists are termed "partisans", but I wouldn't be so sure about that
actually I read about them capturing and using armour
even if a rural community, they would have had to procure weapons and ammunition
apart from that, I don't see an army with only cavalry, infantry and machineguns being able to perform well against Denikin's Whites, who had even planes
the problem with trains and cars is not fuelling them (you can run steam engines with water and almost every fuel), but keeping them running - for which you need specialists - so since they did operate them, they must have had not only peasants available
history tells that the bolsheviks at some time had to rely on the Makhnovists to deal with Denikin and Wrangel, although they were superior in numbers 4:1 to any of their enemies
-
my next step would be to search for ukrainian peasant pictures on the net, but I don't expect too much, because who would take pictures of peasents in 1918??
They are there to be found. Our family used to have an old hard cover book filled to the brim with old photos. It was a Ukrainian cultural book. I have not seen it in years though.
It has never turned up in my searches, but did the Makhnovists have a flag? I've never seen pictures or illustrations of such a thing so it's uncertain to me. Such a detail would really bind a miniature army more so, methinks.
-
my next step would be to search for ukrainian peasant pictures on the net, but I don't expect too much, because who would take pictures of peasents in 1918??
There are many thousands of pictures taken from prior to WWI of peasant Russia. The Bolsheviks tried to paint Tsarist Russia as totally backward, but actually it was relatively modern in many ways.
A good place to start is:
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pp/prokquery.html
My photo book collection is mostly of the Baltics.
maybe we should ask @mark plant where he gets his detailed knowledge from
Maybe you should. Maybe I might share some of it.
I don't see an army with only cavalry, infantry and machineguns being able to perform well against Denikin's Whites
The Maknovists didn't perform well against Denkin's Whites. Actually they mostly didn't fight them, being in separate areas.
The big White breakout in early 1919 smashed the Makhnovists (they were part of the Red Army line). Recriminations flew, and I accept that the Red command set them up to lose, but the Whites still beat them badly.
After that the Makhnovists were soon behind White lines. The Whites harried them mercilessly and had them on the ropes, but Denikin underestimated his opponent and did not send enough troops to finish him off. Then came the "battle" of Peregenovka and Makhno beat up the handful of rear-echelon chasing White units. It was a disaster for the Whites, because it coincided with Budenny breaking the line and the defeat at Orel. The combination led to a rapid White collapse.
The next time the Whites faced Makhno was across the Crimea, when it was always a losing battle for the Whites and the Blacks only formed a small part of the attackers.
I am uncertain of any occasion where Makhno faced and beat a front-line White army.
He was the master of the raid and the surprise attack. What he did not do, because he had absolutely no need to, was face off against comparable numbers of enemy regulars (Red or White) without some element of surprise.
I don't believe he ever took on the Red Army in any numbers either. Certainly the Soviets destroyed his army within months once they were free to do so.
so since they did operate them, they must have had not only peasants available
Most Ukrainian city dwellers of the time were one generation off the farm. In fact many alternated. Finding peasants with experience driving trains would not be hard.
-
well, thats interesting information, thank You
would you mind to tell where it is from, because I would really need a good background book
there are some pictures with a black flag featuring a skull and slogans I can't read
on RCW combat
I wouldn't know how to imagine "front line" combat in RCW, apart from assaults on prepared defence lines
(and certainly noone would expect Makhnovists to do the latter)
My image of RCW is (apart from full scale assaults on defended settlements) a very mobile warfare relying on outflanking manouvres and cavalry ambushes and surprise attacks, often reinforced with armored cars and trains
a style of War which Makhnovists would perform very well at, as I imagine them
as to operating a steam engine
well, on that I did very extensive research
train engineer is a profession you have to learn for some years, and even the man to care for the fire alone has to learn that - simply imagine "scotty" on a smaller scale
(just as an example: when europeans decided to have railways in mid 1800, they had to import the engineers from britain as well )
I therefore very much doubt that any of us in these modern times with a driver license would be able to operate a steam engine
it is not just sit down and turn the key
-
My image of RCW is (apart from full scale assaults on defended settlements) a very mobile warfare relying on outflanking manouvres and cavalry ambushes and surprise attacks, often reinforced with armored cars and trains a style of War which Makhnovists would perform very well at, as I imagine them
There have been several battles around fortified positions: The Whites outbreak from Crimea, Tsaritsin and others.
-
as to operating a steam engine
well, on that I did very extensive research
train engineer is a profession you have to learn for some years, and even the man to care for the fire alone has to learn that - simply imagine "scotty" on a smaller scale
(just as an example: when europeans decided to have railways in mid 1800, they had to import the engineers from britain as well )
I therefore very much doubt that any of us in these modern times with a driver license would be able to operate a steam engine
it is not just sit down and turn the key
While operating a steam engine is a complicated job requiring some expertise, remember steam power was used outside of locomotives - even Czarist Russia had steam boilers providing heat, steam powered tractors, steam powered engines in mills, and the like, all of which greatly expands the pool of available labor.
-
of course
but these would also need qualified personnel
apart from that, a moving steam engine is something different
but my point is that the Makhnovists were not exclusively peasants with some limited technological knowledge, but also others who joined them, that's all
after all, every fraction in the RCW used armored trains of some kind, at least to my knowledge
-
There have been several battles around fortified positions: The Whites outbreak from Crimea, Tsaritsin and others.
did I write anything different?
we are losing the topic here
so, just let me ask some questions:
yes, I read there were full scale battles around fortified positions. But what was the principal type of "battle" fought?
do we agree that the Black army, although "merely" some 30000 strong and consisting "entirely" of peasants, did employ modern technology and were able to engage the Whites and Reds alike in not only patizan engagements?
I am getting a little bit confused here
I know that the sources about the Makhnovists are a little controversial and scarce, but something can be deducted from the fact that they apparently wrecked Denikins moscow thrust and did manage to resist the Bolsheviks for at least 2 years
I mean they were not only partisans with MG riding around on horses an harassing the enemy, or were they? they had some political program and did try to install some new kind of society, right?
-
there are some pictures with a black flag featuring a skull and slogans I can't read
Ah, I have found it. Our family doesn't speak Ukrainian or Russian anymore, that was something they gave up when they immigrated, so I'd be of no help reading anything unless it was foods.
Honestly I see no reason for shaking your booties over engineers with steam machinery knowledge. As far as I've known the Makhnovists included people who weren't necessarily peasants. Even Bolshevik infantry outright deserted to join the anarchists. More than simple farmers would have felt sat upon.
People with specialized knowledge would be few and far between, but they would be there. And I believe it would be safe to assume some train engineers would have been sympathizers or would have been held against their will to allow the Makhnovists access to trains.
...did manage to resist the Bolsheviks for at least 2 years
Their relations with the Bolsheviks were a bit mixed, though never turned out to have been worthwhile in some cases.
-
because I would really need a good background book
On Makhno what you need is: The Makhnovshchina, 1917-1921: ideology, nationalism, and peasant insurgency in early twentieth century Ukraine unpublished PhD thesis by Colin Darch. This is the full story, researched from original material and written by a man neither blinded by love of Anarchism, nor filled with hate either. He even covers military affairs in depth.
I got hold of Mr Darch a few years back and he gave me a copy of this. I had permission to pass on an excerpted version to wargamers - basically it had all the military details but leaves out the political and social bits. He didn't want the full copy released, as he was hoping to sell it as a book. His website shows that he still isn't releasing it generally. I imagine you would want the full thing, however, so I advise that you should contact him directly for permission. http://www.colindarch.info/Ukraine.htm
I've read Archinoff, Volin and Skirda but don't find them much use. Their interest is entirely political and they are hopelessly biased in any case. (I'm not sure there are English translations anyway.)
Another superb book for anyone interested in blacks/greens is Behind the front lines of the Civil War by Vladimir N Brovkin. It's not on the Makhnovists specifically, but none the worse for that.
I wouldn't know how to imagine "front line" combat in RCW, apart from assaults on prepared defence lines (and certainly noone would expect Makhnovists to do the latter)
My image of RCW is (apart from full scale assaults on defended settlements) a very mobile warfare relying on outflanking manouvres and cavalry ambushes and surprise attacks, often reinforced with armored cars and trains
a style of War which Makhnovists would perform very well at, as I imagine them.
I think I may have caused some confusion here. What I meant was that Denikin (foolishly) tried to finish off Makhno using too many rear area and security units. At Peregenovka the units hunting him included the Taman Cossacks, the First Simferopol’ Officers’ Regiment, the Composite Regiment of the 13th Division, the Composite Regiment of the 34th Division and some German colonists. Not the best troops the Whites could put in the field. When he faced the front-line White units in early 1919 his men were severely beaten.
Do we agree that the Black army, although "merely" some 30000 strong and consisting "entirely" of peasants, did employ modern technology and were able to engage the Whites and Reds alike in not only patizan engagements?
Never anything like 30,000 in the field at one time. Perhaps that many might be prepared to fight for him at any one time but they weren't prepared to leave their local areas for any duration. He took a hard core around with him, and fleshed it out with locals when he needed more. He had no means of feeding any large amount. He certainly didn't field anything like 30,000 when he fought for the Red Army (either time).
That they consisted entirely of peasants is irrelevant. The Whites fielded armies mostly of peasants: Russia was 90% peasant at the time. The term "peasant" includes any non-noble farmer, and is not synonymous with "yokel". Some of them had quite large holdings and employed a couple of men to work their land. Many were educated. Many had worked in the cities.
They engaged the enemy (Red, White, Green, Nationalist) in partisan actions mostly. But sometimes they took on sizeable enemy forces in the field, relying on speed and determination to cover their lack of technical means (supply of ammo was always an issue). Generally they didn't do too well when facing top quality Red Army or White Army units, as I understand it, but they didn't need to (until after the Civil War was over).
-
thank you very much
finally we get into reason ;)
getting an unpublished phD Diss shouldn't be a problem
a PhD is only complete when it is published, but since most people can't afford the money the actual compromise is to distribute copies to universities - so I shall check with our history department
I agree, there is only little point in discussing the availabilty of railway personnel, since it was there, though very sought for (read OSPREY; RUSSIAN ARMOUR OF RCW) - although Osprey is not always reliable, these authors know their job
I was just getting a little bit taken away ;D o_o
I am beginning to enjoy this thread
but since I have a very bad day,
Please allow my meek academic ego to indulge in presenting the result of my tiny piece of research:
WARNING: uncarrful reading and quoting of the below written can result in serious brain damage - watch out for nose- and ear-bleeding lol ;)
Colin Darch seems to be a scholar with marxist background. At least it makes me suspicious how many political activists with marxist background do quote him in the current discussion about anarchism (not here!). This is especially interesting since his work is not published yet. Other works quoted by pro-anarchists as "neutral" include: Christopher Reed , From Tsar to Soviets. OUP, available online
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14774660
and Michael Palij , The Anarchism of Nestor Makhno, 1918-1921. UoWP
are at least available. but judge for yourselves
the point where wargamers and socio-political scholars do meet is the Black Army's performance in the RCW, and I will give an example:
In may 1919, the red army threatened the important railway station of Kutenskovo. To counter this, Denikin sent Shkuro's cavalry corps against the Black Army (at that time allied with the bolsheviks) who were holding the right flank of the red 13th army. Weakened by the assignment of one of their divisions to the campaign against Grigoriev, the Black Army gave ground and allowed the white cavalry to infiltrate the bolshevik rear. Trotzki was pissed and sentenced Makhno to death, but the anarchists claimed that they had been (deliberately) left unsupplied by the reds and therefore had to withdraw.
so far the facts
before making any deductions, please let me state the following apparent facts.
The red command assigned the black army a frontline position, and being not very incompetent, must have known about their performance in battle and their capabilities
The logistical situation must have been difficult for the whole red army and it is doubtful that the red command would have endangered the flank guard of their whole army on purpose
The Black army's motivation against the whites and their courage cannot be questioned
so, what would I deduct?
- The Black army was hardly a simple partisan army. It must be clear that that the difference between partisans and a regular army is not the equipment, but the organization and ability to fight as combined arms. They even assigned a division to another campaign...
- Since all units of the red army at that time must have been equally supplied, there can be only two reasons for their withdrawal:
1. either Makhno had made a deal with Trotzky and changed his mind
2. or the Black army did fight until their last bullet (as it would not be surprising to spend more ammunition against an attacking cavalry corps) and being of a different ideology than the bolsheviks decided to save the lives of their soldiers instead of herding them unarmed against the whites (as would have been bolshevik policy)
is this a weak military performance of a partisan force?
again decide for Yourselves
(the anglo-saxon readers uncontent with my english - it's your own fault! shouldn't have stopped in hungaria 1945) ;D ;)
-
(the anglo-saxon readers uncontent with my english - it's your own fault! shouldn't have stopped in hungaria 1945) ;D ;)
It's better than most of the young English speakers. ;)
-
Colin Darch seems to be a scholar with marxist background.
I felt him more anarcho-libertarian myself. Hence his interest in Makhno.
I'm not very partial to Anarchist rhetoric, nor Marxist come to that, but I found his analysis far from tainted by leftist leanings.
He analyses examples such as the one you discuss at Kutenskovo, and comes up with a slightly different answer. Basically he argues that the political differences of Black and Red made military cooperation very difficult, leading to gaps in the line and difficulty manouevring. Also as the Red Army was short on supplies, it was hardly a surprise that the blacks were not supplied first.
I would add that in that time and place it was pretty much out of the question for any mainly infantry unit to stop Shkuro. That was why the Soviets made sure that they had enough cavalry to match the Whites (after initially despising the cavalry as bourgeois and Cossack).
-
seems so indeed
don't get me wrong here
I am not taking any political side
reporting the sources and discussing them is part of the drill
there are a lot of hard talks in anarcho leftist forums especially on the performance of Makhnovists
and since we want to get an idea of the truth, it is necessary to assess the sources
for me it is important wheather I build a Makhnovist army as regular or as partisans
why would you think it would be difficult for an infantry based force to withstand cavalry?
I would go for the opposite
-
there are a lot of hard talks in anarcho leftist forums especially on the performance of Makhnovists
Indeed, with a lot of wishful thinking too.
why would you think it would be difficult for an infantry based force to withstand cavalry?
I would go for the opposite
Perhaps in other situations, but not in the conditions of the south of the Russian Civil War.
1) The mostly open terrain was totally suited to cavalry operations. Rolling, but uncrossed by fences, hedges or ditches is perfect since the cavalry are not slowed, but nonetheless can get close under cover. Up north where it is flatter and also more broken there were very much fewer cavalry.
2) The defenders could never maintain a thick enough line, due to the low troop density. If they clumped they were outflanked. If they spread out they were sabred by a frontal charge.
3) The infantry (all sides) never really had enough ammunition to hold cavalry off with firepower. Nor were most infantry trained to shoot properly.
4) If a cavalry unit made a break-through, they were into the rear and trashing it in a flash. If infantry did, the hole might be plugged. This was Budenny's forte - he probed and probed until he found a chink, then poured his men through into the enemy rear. And when I say rear, I mean many kilometres, potentially hundreds.
It is often said that the machine-gun killed off cavalry, but I reckon that is not true. Cavalry can take on MGs, especially if they have their own (tachankas) to lay down covering fire. What kills cavalry is barbed wire. The Western Front of WWI had line after line of it. The RCW had very little - but it is noticeable that when they did have it that the cavalry was useless (the first attacks on Tsaritsyn, for example).
The total dominance of the White cavalry was such that the Soviets soon took notice. The result was the Konnarmiya. Not always much chop individually, but a brutal weapon when used properly in mass.
-
seems they got better later on in poland
but I get the idea, thx
and yes, MG are not very useful if you don't have ammunition
sounds expensive for the wargamer :'(
-
sounds expensive for the wargamer :'(
All miniature armies are expensive (even real world ones), unless they're 6mm scale or something. Personally my opinion would be to build the army accordingly with what you'd be playing on. Cavalry where they could be effective, machine guns in defensible spots, and infantry to fill the open space.
-
seems they got better later on in Poland
I'm not sure I follow. The 1920 campaign in south Poland was totally dominated by cavalry. On the attack towards Kiev the Polish cavalry gave the Soviets a terrible time. Then Budenny arrived, and the scales turned. It was his cavalry divisions that drove the Poles back (the Soviet infantry only having a minor supporting role). It was the return of the Polish 1st Cavalry Division which once more turned the tide to the Poles.
In the north Poland is too flat and broken with woods and lakes/bogs to be ideal cavalry territory. Nevertheless the cavalry there was still a strike force. Gai Khan's cavalry rode right over the Polish Siberian Brigade, in the last great disaster of the war for the Poles.
-
that's what IO meant with expensive
cavalry models are usually disproportionately more expensive than infantry
unless you buy plastic
so, perry, plastic cossacks please
-
Quite true, but those who sell the cavalry follow a formula: more infantry=lower price, not so many cavalry=higher price. Mongols would be super expensive to do (which is probably why I've never seen a miniature army of them).
Does anyone other than Eureka make 28mm scale tachankas?
-
Here is an article by a White about the Makhnovists I just found:
http://www.hrono.ru/libris/lib_g/geras_mahno.html
I can't read Russian, but with Google translate, a dictionary and some knowledge of technical terms, some useful bits can be extracted. In the middle he says:
XIII. Makhno's Army
By the end of 1919 those grouped around Makhno, all bore in common the name: "The Army of batko Makhno."
The main militant core of the army, the most active, serving as a skeleton, from which then deployed troops, composed of peasants, consisted of:
1) the personal staff and escort of Makhno, numbering up to 300 people. At the head of them, as Chief of Staff, was a former locksmith Kiiko and commander of the escort was a sailor Liashenko, [who wore rich coats looted from Ekaterinoslav] even in summer heat;
2) the cavalry - 1 000 riders, [as determined by Makhno himself], under the command of former sergeant Dolzhenko;
3) a machine gun regiment, ie, riding infantry - 800 carts with 1-2 machine guns on each and a crew of 3-4-5 including the driver, with in general up to 3,500 people, under the overall command of a former sailor, Guro;
4) the artillery - six three-inch field guns, with a full harness and the caisson, in general, up to 200 people, under the command of former gunner Zozulya;
5) commandant teams and other support units, moving exclusively in carts, and sometimes participating in the battles, with in general up to 500 people.
Permanent purely infantry units, sanitary facilities and commissariat waggons did not exist in the Makhnovist army.
The permanent forces available to Makhno, were composed mostly of former sailors of the navy, criminal elements, deserters from the Red and White armies, and only a small number of young peasants. They can be estimated as numbering 5,000, not counting the Revolutionary Military Council of the Army.
In addition to these permanent units there were temporary ones, mostly infantry units, obtained by mobilization of the peasants. Depending on the region, mobilization could give in one night 10-15,000 men and more, often with artillery and cavalry. These consisted exclusively of peasants and were distributed to regiments bearing the name of the villages who gave a contingent (Petrovsky, Novospasskij etc.).
The strength of these regiments and their weapons were very diverse. In most cases the three different types of weapons were kept in separate units.
Bits I struggled to understand are [in square brackets].
This is the army at the peak, and the man writing is a White so has reasons to exaggerate its size, but while I might quibble about a couple of numbers quoted and that it is contradictory to have artillery but no supply commissariat, I doubt he is seriously wrong about the major points.
Interestingly from a wargamer's point of view, while he says that the peasant regiments looked just like peasants, that the commanders had a tendency to dress up in mock Ukrainian Cossack style, and to like rich fur coats. That would certainly add colour to an HQ!
He also adds that the carts (and the entire army was usually cart or horse mounted) had a tendency to be filled with loot. He mentions rich rugs and moonshine, both of which are rarely seen on wargames units.
-
Thanks for the link!
-
interesting mobile army
thank's for the link
1600 MG ???
my god!
-
I think we can take the size of the tachanka regiment with a grain of salt. Even if they had that many, full ammunition for them would be out of the question.
From a wargamer's point of view I think it says a few things though. The hard core of the army, those whose morale and skill should be high, are the permanent cavalry and tachanka regiments. The infantry should all be hastily raised, and of a much lower quality.
-
yes, but expensive army, damn...
cavalry and tachankas...
-
Hoe yeah.
-
looks like I was born to game such an army ;)
early 20th century, with WWI weapons, but also "old school tactics",
at the same time mobile infantry concept at it's best
(1919 constantly retreating from Denikin's troops and then artfully infiltrating their flank - at least as I read) - Blitzkrieg without tanks....
and then - Officers dressed like pimps or Opera singers, waggons full of loot
with an ideology (if it worked?)
there are so many controversies about this army...
anyway, I just thought of expanding my previous "fur hat" peasent concept by adding some workers Militia from Musketeers BCW range (no '30s hats or Tommy helmets)
and I need to search for some colourful officers
actually, the real background of the Black Army is so shrouded in the mists of soviet propaganda and anarchist ideology that it virtually cries out for an alternative "what if" setting...
-
some pics here - http://www.makhno.ru/photo.php
(http://www.makhno.ru/photo/other/026.jpg)
(http://www.makhno.ru/photo/dopolnenie/17.jpg)
Makhno's Hundret, a sort of guard troop
(http://www.makhno.ru/photo/dopolnenie/41.gif)
-
thx Prof.
as alway top supplier of Background
(I might be biased, but I see maaaaany fur caps ;) o_o)
how would you comment on the "egaliatarian Cosack-style" background ???
Makhnovia seems to lie within the historical hetmanate country, but I wonder how much "cosack" identity would have been present in the Anarchist ideology, since the "Cosacks" as an ethnic and political identity would appear to have sided with the Whites
The Term "Cosack" seems to be a comlicated "tag" in related to common concepts of ethnicity, political organization, social identity etc
as I understand, it is ethnical, but political at the same time, but there seems to be no "Cosack language", as would ususally be expected for a ethniv entity????
I am a bit confused on that...
-
Cossacks are not ethnical. In fact their early days have something in common with the Machnovia. Cossacks have started as runaway unfree peasants who build communities in the then uncivilised ukrainian steppes. they fought tartars, but also with or against poles and moscovites/russians. The 17th and 18th century saw an endless range of cossack uprisings, first against the poles (http://www.kriegsreisende.de/ has a good article about this in german - not to mention the rest of this very good page), then against russia (remember Yul Brynner?). Afterwards the tsars seem to have had god relations with them, the cossacks got privilegs and fought for the tsar. And I guess you couldn't call them anarchistic any longer :)
-
Cossacks are not ethnical.
exactly. They're just a social and a bit of political unity. It has nothing to do with anarchists either. In the same way anarchists don't deal with cossack-style.
-
It has never turned up in my searches, but did the Makhnovists have a flag? I've never seen pictures or illustrations of such a thing so it's uncertain to me. Such a detail would really bind a miniature army more so, methinks.
of course, they did, see attachment. With "Freedom or Death" or "Death to the soviets" etc. slogans. The last one isn't so spectacular as the rest, it's of the 2.infantry regiment of Makhno's army.
-
well...
the matter is a little complicated, being the reason why I asked the question
I have done some research on that:
"Andreas Kappeler, Kleine Geschichte der Ukraine. Munich 1994"
being my core reference. (Kapeler is Prof. for Eastern European History at the Univ. of Cologne)
what I understood about Cossacks is in short-
Cosacks migrated in the 16. and 17. C into the main river basins of southern "Russia", and were a warrior society who lived of hunting, fishing and livestock, with frequent looting campaign.
after the political crisis in the end of the 17. C, the then political entity of the "hetmanate" was tricked into an alliance with the Muscovites against the poles, after which the Cossacks essentially belonged to the Tsar (including the differences mentiones as uprisings above).
Until the revolution, they formed a social class of theit own (which was rather normal in a multilayered society) owing military allegiance to the Tsar and profiting of a special legal status.
(what I read about Yul Brynner is that noone really knew wghat he was, he himself variously claiming Cosack, Gypsy and whatever descent)
the problems with such historical references is that the POV is usually from outside (biased or not) and refers to the socioploital role of a certain group.
As I understand, throughout time "Cosack" means different things
the essence of my "confusion" relates to the fact that I fail to understand what from 16. C to today, the term "Cosack" means for someone who claims to belong to this group (the inner POV so to say)
for example, the typical "Cosack" dressing as perceived by us and as displayed today in newly formed cosack units is actually a "tscherkassian" dress, used in early 20C. only by few Cossack communities
(for instance, the mercenery guard od the King of Jordan after WWII displayed this uniform)
the only persistant aspect of Cosacks seems to be the special social rules and the election of leaders.
This is the way I understand the "Anarchist" link.
The Essence of Anarchism I view as the refusal of inherited leadership, and social management by mutual respect - which is indeed Cossack-style
while the outer perspective on anarchism usually incudes disorganisation and lack of leadership, from the inner perspective there was never an anarchist community without, but it was based on election.
related to the special role of cossacks under the Tsar (and Putin ;)), a military community based on elected (and not inherited) leadership forming a mutual alliance with another ruler is basically "anarchist" (though unrelated to the sociopolitical ideologs of late 19.C)
this would be the cossack perspective, whereas the Muscovites saw them merely as new subjects of the Tsar (this being the basic reason for the cossack "uprisings")
now back to my original question:
In RCW, Cosacks appeared as:
1. the original organised groups formerly "serving" the Tsar and siding with the Whites in order to keep their privilages (though the Whites were not monarchists but simply revisionists)
2. individual subjects to the bolsheviks who were denied cossack identity
3. and finally the (formerly unknown to me) aspect of the Makhnovist elite relating themselves to cosack identity
since the location of "Makhnovia" and the ethnic mixture of that part of Ukraine is totally consistent with cosack ancestry, I would be curios to know if the Makhnovist elite viewed themselves as the "better" or more "original" cossacks who had managed to shake off the Tsarist yoke and wanted to return to original cosack tradition or if they used that tag for propaganda (which would be more in line with the White account of officers wearing "mock" cossack style, this accont however also revealing white propaganda as the Whites would see themselves as allied with the "true" Cossacks)
for wargaming this is of course totally unimportant, but I am simply curious
thanky for the flags
is there a translation?
-
When the Ukraine started to try to reassert its old/imagined identity against Russia in the late 19th century, the Cossacks were one solid thing they had to fall back on. They couldn't really claim language or ethnicity too much, since these are clearly similar to Russian. Lots of Ukrainians are Catholic or Uniate, but many are Orthodox too, so religion is not a basis.
With the revolution in 1917 there were loads of "Free Cossack" associations formed in the Ukraine. Local militia, essentially. They dressed in traditional Zaporozhian dress, often quite flamboyantly. This dress is recogniseably different from the both the Steppe and Mountain Cossacks of Russia.
Two regiments of the Ukrainian National government went for this look too. One can be seen in Plate C1 of the Osprey on the Whites. The other was the Grey Zhupans, who looked somewhat similar but in grey. The best regiment in the UNR was the Sich Riflemen, with a name also reminding of the Cossack days.
The Germans recognised this when they put a Skoropadsky in charge of the new Hetmanate! There was a name to strike a good anti-Russian note!
The attraction of the Cossack theme to the Makhnovists was obvious. It combined everything they stood for. Ukrainian nationalism in opposition to Russian centralism. Free associations of men, as opposed to formal government from the centre. Combined with a sexy history of violence and free-booting!
The other Ukrainians would not have associated Zaporozhian Cossacks with the other Cossacks. Not that they would necessarily have minded anyway - they supported Cossack separatism on the Don (Hetman Skoropadsky supplied loads of arms to the Don Host) and many Ukrainians claim the Kuban Cossacks as Ukrainians.
There has been an attempted revival of things Cossack in the post-Soviet Ukraine too.
http://www.kozatstvo.org.ua/statut_e.php
-
and then - Officers dressed like pimps or Opera singers, waggons full of loot
with an ideology (if it worked?)
and I need to search for some colourful officers
I would suggest one figure for some officer: the priest from command pack I of brigade games storm in the east range.
http://www.brigadegames.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?
Of course you must remove the cross. It is very richly dressed with a long coat. I think he might be some sort of Makhno officer.
As for variety in the peasants mob, I also would like to recommend the bulgarian irregulars by Tiger miniatures.
-
Is it fair to say that for a Black RCW army shoulder boards would need to be filed off of White figures? I suspect the answer is "yes" but then again the Blacks seemed to use such a mishmash of gear that maybe they were not as concerned about the shoulder boards as were the Reds.
-
Shoulderboards have to go. It wasn't the Soviets who were against them as much as all revolutionaries.
-
Thanks! I suspected as much.
-
I think the Brigade priest looks just fine
yes, the Machnovists were not into religion, but I don't care
a colourful army is more important
I even thought of using some workers from Musketeer III BCW range
and there is also a proletarian looking priest contained
of course no tin hats or bourgeois city hats
with the new anarchist figures now it is even better
has anyone seen the other Machno someone made or is it the same one??
-
former user: The other Makhno is OK. It is like a sculpt from the late 1970s, early 1980s. IMO, the Brigade Games figure far surpasses it in quality. Plus BG also produced Schuss. I have my fingers crossed that the BG ones will do well and that maybe the suggested mounted versions of Makhno and Schuss will come out too.
-
Was looking at the Old Glory First World War Russians and saw their overcoats have what look like shoulder boards too. Are they the detested by revolutionaries shoulder boards or a part of the overcoat, like built up shoulders? If those figures were bought for use as Blacks, would those details need filing off as well ? Sorry for all these questions on uniform details. I am a pulp player transitioning over to historical play. Answers are very much appreciated. Maybe a sticky on converting First World War & White figures to Red or Black would be good?
-
no problem
yep, shoulderboards discarded for reds and Machnovists
however, they were reintroduced by reds some time later, forgot when
not sure how old gory match with others...
maybe someone can be more detailed?
-
Just rediscovered this entertaining and inpiring text I found on the net somewhere in 2002. The source I have forgotten, but I remember written by an Ukrainian or Russian:
[...] Makhno had the unreserved support of the
devout peasants. The latter took their places alongside the anarchist
army's permanent backbone, which consisted of "declasse elements",
i.e. adventurers, sailors, criminals, ideological anarchists - all
those who refused to recognize discipline or military hierarchies.
The latter were constantly drunk, fundamentally unpredictable and
dressed in Freakish get-ups which often combined women's stockings,
pantaloons and bras with sailor striped vests, sailor's caps,
guerilla-style cartridge belts, long hair dressed in the "Parisian"
style, large quantities of parasites, etc. Covered with expensive
carpets, the tachankas would be loaded with: one or two machine guns,
barrels containing wine and home-brewed spirit, assorted plunder, 3 -
5 soldiers, and even music (played by a gramophone). The soldier's
endless drinking sprees, in which they tried to involve everyone
around them, culminated in a state of trance and were distinctly
reminiscent of archaic rituals or modern raves - a resemblance which
was underlined by the rhythm of machine guns firing unceasingly into
the air and shots from whatever other weapons were at hand
(fireworks). The army's special reconnaissance divisions included
several hundred women.
The appearance of the tachanka as a war machine was predicted by the
emergence of "behavior" and "constructions" a la tachanka in
contemporary art: the Russian futurists and Dada; later: the group of
writers known as OBERIUTY (Obschestvo Realnogo Iskusstva or "The
Society of Real Art"); the surrealists; etc. This makes it possible
to detect in 20th-century art yet another mainstream - leading from
the archaic Bakhtinian carnival "resistance" to Art Brut, absurdist
happenings, spontaneity and automatism, qualities which reflect and
translate the essence of the world for initiates and idiots alike. It
is also possible to see a reference to the Kantian aesthetic of the
sublime abstract."
-
Makhno had the unreserved support of the
devout peasants. The latter took their places alongside the anarchist
army's permanent backbone, which consisted of "declasse elements",
i.e. adventurers, sailors, criminals, ideological anarchists - all
those who refused to recognize discipline or military hierarchies.
The latter were constantly drunk, fundamentally unpredictable and
dressed in Freakish get-ups which often combined women's stockings,
pantaloons and bras with sailor striped vests, sailor's caps,
guerilla-style cartridge belts, long hair dressed in the "Parisian"
style, large quantities of parasites, etc. Covered with expensive
carpets, the tachankas would be loaded with: one or two machine guns,
barrels containing wine and home-brewed spirit, assorted plunder, 3 -
5 soldiers, and even music (played by a gramophone). The soldier's
endless drinking sprees, in which they tried to involve everyone
around them, culminated in a state of trance and were distinctly
reminiscent of archaic rituals or modern raves - a resemblance which
was underlined by the rhythm of machine guns firing unceasingly into
the air and shots from whatever other weapons were at hand
(fireworks). The army's special reconnaissance divisions included
several hundred women.
The appearance of the tachanka as a war machine was predicted by the
emergence of "behavior" and "constructions" a la tachanka in
contemporary art: the Russian futurists and Dada; later: the group of
writers known as OBERIUTY (Obschestvo Realnogo Iskusstva or "The
Society of Real Art"); the surrealists; etc. This makes it possible
to detect in 20th-century art yet another mainstream - leading from
the archaic Bakhtinian carnival "resistance" to Art Brut, absurdist
happenings, spontaneity and automatism, qualities which reflect and
translate the essence of the world for initiates and idiots alike. It
is also possible to see a reference to the Kantian aesthetic of the
sublime abstract."
Lol. Sounds like San Francisco in the mid 1970's!
-
http://igwargminis.com/photo2_1.html
They were mentioned in this topic on TMP:
http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=168632
The poster there indicated there were a bit smaller than Copplestone but they are good for mixing in with Brigade Games and Copplestone.
I quite like the first one in Great Coats with Beards though the other one shown looks good too.
http://www.oldgloryminiatures.com/products.asp?cat=313
-
yes, I couldn't see the pictures in the online catalogue, thanks
this must be the winter gear